Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36405642›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2022

Familiarity with, perceptions of and attitudes toward butterflies of urban park users in megacities across East and Southeast Asia.

Voon-Ching Lim, Kong-Wah Sing, Kwek Yan Chong, Narong Jaturas, Hui Dong, Ping-Shin Lee, Nguyen Thien Tao, Dzung Trung Le, Timothy C Bonebrake, Toby P N Tsang and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Ethics and Invertebrates: The Problem Is Us.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  4. Personalised ecology and the future of biodiversity.Cambridge prisms. Extinction · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 14 institutions in 10 countries.

Voon-Ching LimSchool of Science, Monash University Malaysia, 47500 Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia.ORCID 0000-0002-2722-4771
Kong-Wah SingSouth China DNA Barcoding Center, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, Yunnan 650223, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-2151-5551
Kwek Yan ChongDepartment of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 16 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117558, Republic of Singapore.
Narong JaturasDepartment of Microbiology and Parasitology, Faculty of Medical Science, Naresuan University, Phitsanulok, Thailand.
Hui DongFairy Lake Botanical Garden, Shenzhen & Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China.
Ping-Shin LeeAnhui Provincial Key Laboratory of the Conservation and Exploitation of Biological Resources, College of Life Sciences, Anhui Normal University, Wuhu, Anhui 24100, People's Republic of China.
Nguyen Thien TaoVietnam Academy of Science and Technology, Institute of Genome Research, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet Road, Cau Giay, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Dzung Trung LeMinistry of Education and Training, 35 Dai Co Viet Road, Hai Ba Trung District, Vietnam.
Timothy C BonebrakeSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.ORCID 0000-0001-9999-2254
Toby P N TsangSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Leo ChuDepartment of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, UK.
Guo-Jie Brandon-MongDepartment of Life Science, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Wye-Lup KongDepartment of Life Science, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Masashi SogaGraduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
John-James WilsonAnhui Provincial Key Laboratory of the Conservation and Exploitation of Biological Resources, College of Life Sciences, Anhui Normal University, Wuhu, Anhui 24100, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-3583-3550
National Taiwan Normal University · TWAnhui Normal University · CNChinese Academy of Sciences · CNKunming Institute of Zoology · CNMinistry of Education and Training · VNMonash University Malaysia · MYNaresuan University · THNational Museums Liverpool · GBNational Parks Board · SGThe University of Tokyo · JPUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Hong Kong · HKUniversity of Toronto · CAVietnam Academy of Science and Technology · VN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Perceptions of, and attitudes toward, wildlife are influenced by exposure to, and direct experiences with, nature. Butterflies are a conspicuous and ubiquitous component of urban nature across megacities that are highly urbanized with little opportunity for human-nature interactions. We evaluated public familiarity with, perceptions of and attitudes toward butterflies across nine megacities in East and Southeast Asia through face-to-face interviews with 1774 urban park users. A total of 79% of respondents had seen butterflies in their cities mostly in urban parks, indicating widespread familiarity with butterflies. Those who had seen butterflies also had higher perceptions of butterflies, whereas greater than 50% of respondents had positive attitudes toward butterflies. Frequent visits to natural places in urban neighbourhoods was associated with (i) sightings of caterpillars, indicating increased familiarity with urban wildlife, and (ii) increased connectedness to nature. We found two significant positive relationships: (i) between connectedness to nature and attitudes toward butterflies and (ii) between connectedness to nature and perceptions of butterflies, firmly linking parks users' thoughts and feelings about butterflies with their view of nature. This suggests that butterflies in urban parks can play a key role in building connectedness to nature and consequently pro-environmental behaviours and support for wildlife conservation among urban residents.

Indexed as

butterfliesconservationhuman–wildlife interactionsmegacitiesnature experiencesurban wildlife

Identifiers

PMID36405642
PMCPMC9653264
OpenAlexW4308732924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.